Posted on 4 Comments

Routine Mammograms Carry Their Own Dangers

This crossed my desk today (gosh, is that a dated saying!) and I felt compelled to share: finally an official allopathic body of doctors is releasing the info that routine diagnostic mammograms are not quite as safe as they have been leading us to believe:

The Institute of Medicine is finally acknowledging the toxic effects of mammogram radiation as a significant factor in the development of breast cancer; just one mammogram can expose you to the radiation equivalent of 1,000 chest x-rays

  • Mammograms also carry an unacceptably high rate of false positives—up to six percent—which can lead to repeat screenings that expose you to even more radiation, as well as unnecessary medical procedures, including biopsies, surgery, and chemotherapy
  • A new study in the British Medical Journal highlights losses in quality of life related to the high rates of false positives and unnecessary treatment associated with breast cancer screening
  • Mammograms have been scientifically proven not to save women’s lives, and do not improve breast cancer survival rates over annual physical examination alone
  • Your immune system is your greatest weapon against breast cancer; research now shows that 30 percent of breast tumors go away on their own, because a healthy immune system is so adept at eradicating cancer

You can read this entire article HERE.

This is not to say that a mammogram has never helped a woman in her dealing with cancer; just a caveat that yearly routine mammograms with no physical evidence (like a felt lump) may not be so much “early detection” but a problem in itself of “unintended consequences.”

4 thoughts on “Routine Mammograms Carry Their Own Dangers

  1. A good friend of mine who is an x-ray technician says exactly the same thing and she does not routinely have mammograms (not sure if she has ever had one). I have had 2 experiences of false positives with the resulting biopsies, thermograms, etc. But 1 of the times the lump was palpable with ragged edges and not moveable – but didn’t need a mammogram to detect this. The Canadian Cancer Society recommends mammograms every 2 years for women at routine risk for breast Ca so this is a little less invasive than yearly. I find it very hard to know what to do. I don’t want breast cancer. These breasts are on the outside of our bodies – it should be easier to detect something wrong in them. It’s not like they are in the nether regions, deep and mysterious. There has to be a better way – we need to find it.

  2. Thank you, Cathy. I can pass this on to my Daughters. I have never had a mamogram because I learned many years ago that they don’t use them for diagnostic purposes in Europe. And now there are options that insurance doesn’t pay for, but at least there are options. And thanks for saying that our immune systems can help address breast cancers. One of my Daughters had lumps under her arms, they wanted to biopsy, remove, etc. and I made her a deodorant with lymph cleansing Essential Oils and the lumps went away. I should make that a product! Genny

  3. Just for the record, I have had 2 mammograms, once in my 40’s (the so-called baseline) and once in my 50’s. Then I began reading the first glimmerings of holistic practitioner dissent. Every MD (that has been one of my health care providers) with whom I have spoken regarding mammograms has been in favor of them.

    This reminds me of when I was turning 50, and experiencing perimenopause. At that time every MD I knew was touting HRT (of the horse urine/synthetic progesterone variety), including for my ocassional hot flashes. This was the beginning of my deep desire to understand, from a holistic perspective, how to help (especially) women navigate the medical minefields of allopathic advice regarding what was truly beneficial for our bodies and health.

    So I started studying perimenopause, found lots of info (much of it written, not yet on the internet) that showed that HRT was coming from a non-feminist analysis, as well as a belief that whatever big pharma came up with, being “new”, “technological” and created by scientists, was therefor inherently “good” for women. AND that HRT was actually a really bad idea (at least the non-bio-identical form) because it did not factor in cross species and synthetic hormone’s adverse affects upon the liver (among many other problems).

    Now there is proof that HRT (Prem/Pro, which used to one of Big Pharma’s best sellers) causes cancer….And I am positing that if we understand anything about the body it is this: ionizing radiation is one of the causes (over time, and not in every single instance) of cancer. Secondly: whatever is manufactured in a lab (synthetic hormones, GMO, etc.) is being found out (by scientists not working for the companies that create this stuff) to have “unforseen” consequences that are detrimental to our health.

    Yes, there must be a better way…and part of why that way is so hard to discern is that the system is currently rigged: if you want to make money, you have to have a patent. Natural substances can’t be patented. So a scientist has to change the “handedness of a molecule,” for instance, to create a new substance that can then be marketed. Unfortunately, our body sees that change in handedness (or the “stacked gene” changes in GMO plants) as a problematic “other,” and off we go into “side-effect” land.

    My current not-really-an-answer-but-rather-a-way-of-livng (and why I’m wring this blog) is to explore what foods, food preparing techniques, herbs, and natural substances (supplements) are beneficial for the body in general, as well as helping our bodies fight disease.

    And anything natural that helps our immune systems detect and destroy cancer cells is worth pursuing. A really good place to start your own on-line research is @

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.